• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Navy will soon let women serve on subs

CrusaderRabbit08 said:
That's what many of us have been saying all along.

But even that won't appease those who want females out. There's no satisfying them.
Click to expand...

Simple question...why do you think they have continually been lowering the standards...not just in the military but in society? And what impact does that have on the positions when the standards are unified but lowered?
 
Blackdog said:
Dammit get it right! We don't want females out. We realize the PC crowed in this country will not let the standards be equalized because of attrition. So far it has never happened, ever. The standards have been relentlessly dropped in the civilian world as well.

Stop ignoring the reality and get your head out of your ass and listen to what we are saying.
Click to expand...

Reread what I said. I never said all.
 
Blackdog said:
You need to read the rest of my posts.

Realistically as I have said over and over, it will not be done.

Post #314 would also be helpful.
Click to expand...

The jobs you mention would not require much equalization in the way of standards. We are talking about creating combat category jobs where the standards for men and women would be identical, and where women could VOLUNTARILY apply for the job.
 
CrusaderRabbit08 said:
It's not why I got out.

I never went to war. Vietnam was just ending and they were no longer sending troops there.

Never heard of title 10. I was active duty Army.
Click to expand...

OK...that makes sense. And I dont disrespect your service...Im grateful for it. Todays military is just a TEENSY bit different than post Nam 70's and 80's. Combat field packs weigh damn near as much as many female soldiers. The fighting conditions are radically different. Its truly a different time and military.
 
VanceMack said:
Simple question...why do you think they have continually been lowering the standards...not just in the military but in society? And what impact does that have on the positions when the standards are unified but lowered?
Click to expand...

Because they're stupid and unwilling to fight for the correct solution. Lowered standards is the easy way out ..but the wrong way.
 
VanceMack said:
OK...that makes sense. And I dont disrespect your service...Im grateful for it. Todays military is just a TEENSY bit different than post Nam 70's and 80's. Combat field packs weigh damn near as much as many female soldiers. The fighting conditions are radically different. Its truly a different time and military.
Click to expand...

The standards should not be lowered. However, they should be realistic.
 
CrusaderRabbit08 said:
Reread what I said. I never said all.
Click to expand...

I did not say you did. I said we don't want females out, and we don't. We also realize females in combat units is a very bad idea and have stated why with evidence no less.

So far the opposing views have been backed up by allot of lofty talk of equality that in the real world will not happen.
 
Last edited:
I think this is one of the few exceptions we should place on women serving. There are a couple reasons but the biggest is that most men and women are not able to suppress their sexual desires. There WILL be trouble with rape and pregnancy, regardless of sexual orientation.
 
CrusaderRabbit08 said:
Because they're stupid and unwilling to fight for the correct solution. Lowered standards is the easy way out ..but the wrong way.
Click to expand...

OK...now...see...I PERSONALLY think that if you said THAT...from the getgo...we would all have common ground. And i dont pretend to have read the previous 33 pages of comments...I actually have a job...

Unfortunately the argument always seems to break down to equality issues...rights issues.

I dont want weaker soldier standards so more can make it. I dont want lowered test requirements so just anyone can become a cop or be promoted to leadership positions. 1 standard...the HIGHEST of standards...and I think we could probably ALL agree on that.
 
American said:
What does that mean?
Click to expand...

It means they should be an accurate reflection of the demands of the job. For instance, it was mentioned that on a sub, some equipment weighs 150 pounds, and a woman couldn't move that by herself.

Tell me...how many men move a 150 pound pump, BY THEMSELVES? If they do, that's stupid, they are risking back injury for no good reason.
 
Catz Part Deux said:
It means they should be an accurate reflection of the demands of the job. For instance, it was mentioned that on a sub, some equipment weighs 150 pounds, and a woman couldn't move that by herself.

Tell me...how many men move a 150 pound pump, BY THEMSELVES?
Click to expand...

Most actually. For the fire department you used to have to carry a 150lb dummy up and down 2 flights of stairs.

Needless to say, not anymore.
 
Last edited:
Blackdog said:
Most actually.
Click to expand...

I call bull****. Boyfriend runs a solar power company and doesn't handle the 150 pound solar panels/water heaters by himself. He did so last year and pulled a groin muscle. And he's a solidly muscled 220 pound, 6'4" guy.
 
VanceMack said:
OK...that makes sense. And I dont disrespect your service...Im grateful for it. Todays military is just a TEENSY bit different than post Nam 70's and 80's. Combat field packs weigh damn near as much as many female soldiers. The fighting conditions are radically different. Its truly a different time and military.
Click to expand...

That's because I was never in a field unit. I never did daily PT and rarely dressed in fatigues or dress uniforms. In the 7 years I was in, I only requalified with an M16 once. Most of my co-workers were civilians. Having to shine my shoes, get a haircut, and salute officers was about as military as it got for me.
 
Catz Part Deux said:
I call bull****. Boyfriend runs a solar power company and doesn't handle the 150 pound solar panels/water heaters by himself. He did so last year and pulled a groin muscle. And he's a solidly muscled 220 pound, 6'4" guy.
Click to expand...

Not so fast, you are talking about more than just weight. That is also cumbersome and awkward.

I know, I have carried the dummy.
 
Catz Part Deux said:
It means they should be an accurate reflection of the demands of the job. For instance, it was mentioned that on a sub, some equipment weighs 150 pounds, and a woman couldn't move that by herself.

Tell me...how many men move a 150 pound pump, BY THEMSELVES?
Click to expand...

Ive had to press 150-200 pound antenna arrays into place while another secures it. And we are talking enclosed spaces. 90 pound tunable components in the tail of cargo transports where there is zero room for mechanical equipment. And I wasnt the only one in the service that did it...so...at least a few of us.
 
CrusaderRabbit08 said:
That's because I was never in a field unit. I never did daily PT and rarely dressed in fatigues or dress uniforms. In the 7 years I was in, I only requalified with an M16 once. Most of my co-workers were civilians. Having to shine my shoes, get a haircut, and salute officers was about as military as it got for me.
Click to expand...

I figured as much, and please dont take any of that as disrespect. We need EVERYONE to do their job...including the protocal officer that couldnt spell Army if you spot him or her the A and the Y.

The only point is that things ARE a little different today. Our 'clerk' jumped out of the planes with us. Carried a full field pack. etc.
 
Blackdog said:
Most actually. For the fire department you used to have to carry a 150lb dummy up and down 2 flights of stairs.

Needless to say, not anymore.
Click to expand...

Why not anymore???
 
Blackdog said:
One more factor is being left out to consider. Females make up 11% of the military of the US. Many of these women are in mission critical jobs. If the standards were made the same across the board (in the end everyone is infantry) the majority of the females could not pass. More than 10% according to other studies would wash out. This would hurt rather than help our fighting forces. Or fighting forces would forever be less than 1% female. This takes men off the front lines to man positions a female can handle just fine.

This is the reality of the situation. No amount of wishful thinking no matter how well intended or in this case correct, will change this.

You can call it sexist if you want, but reality says no.
Click to expand...

How about this. If a woman passes the current standards she can serve in where women are currently allowed. If she goes above and beyond and meets the male standards she can serve where only men can currently serve. If no women can pass the higher level of standards, oh well, no women in subs or on the front line.
 
DrunkenAsparagus said:
How about this. If a woman passes the current standards she can serve in where women are currently allowed. If she goes above and beyond and meets the male standards she can serve where only men can currently serve. If no women can pass the higher level of standards, oh well, no women in subs or on the front line.
Click to expand...

How would you feel about "and if a woman chooses to go into a frontline position she must mandatorily be on Norplant?"

I hope no one gets the idea that Im against women in the military...furthest thing from it...Even with the complications of the "Queen of the Desert" syndrome which EVERY FOL faces, they still pretty much do their job.
 
VanceMack said:
Why not anymore???
Click to expand...

She sued the Fire Dept and won. Hence the whole issue with why females should not be in combat. Invariably someone will win and get the standards reduced.

The standards are tough to deal with the stresses of combat. As the testimony I posted from West Point says, realistically it will lead to reduced standards for females and eventually men as happened at West Point.
 
Last edited:
DrunkenAsparagus said:
How about this. If a woman passes the current standards she can serve in where women are currently allowed. If she goes above and beyond and meets the male standards she can serve where only men can currently serve. If no women can pass the higher level of standards, oh well, no women in subs or on the front line.
Click to expand...

I would not have a problem with that. Never going to happen though.
 
Blackdog said:
Not so fast, you are talking about more than just weight. That is also cumbersome and awkward.

I know, I have carried the dummy.
Click to expand...

Then the standards should reflect the ACTUAL DEMANDS of the job. I'm not suggesting that they should be lowered. I'm suggesting that they should be evaluated for relevance.

Sometimes, an agency will have a broad standard required of all employees that, when evaluated, isn't realistic. Perhaps it's too low, perhaps it's too high. I have ZERO PROBLEMS with men and women using the same standards, based upon the job.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom